lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] Separate IRQ-stacks from 4K-stacks option
    From
    Date
    On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 16:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Okay, I'll be the one to ask... what overload of the IPL acronym are
    > > you using here? I asked google and several jargon files, and they all
    > > say that IPL (initial program load) is IBMspeak for cold boot. Somehow
    > > I don't think that's what you mean here.
    >
    > i understood it as Interrupt Privilege Levels. The notion of having some
    > sort of scalar 'limit' - all interrupts with a higher priority than that
    > will execute, all interrupts with lower priority will block. This is a
    > fundamentally dodgy concept because in reality interrupt sources are
    > independent entities so the natural description for of them is a bitmask
    > (or an array, or whatever), not a level.
    >

    Yeah, I was talking about interrupt priority levels. I have to admit my
    only exposure to them is a book on Solaris, they are intended as a
    mechanism to deal with priority inversions. Sounds like a neat trick on
    paper but they don't seem to be applicable here.

    Lee

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.021 / U:123.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site